The role of combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension

Efficacy of Microneedling and CO2 Laser for Acne Scar Remodelling: A Comprehensive Review

Acne scarring is a prevalent issue affecting millions worldwide, with significant psychological and social implications. Microneedling and CO2 laser therapy have emerged as promising modalities for acne scar remodelling. Microneedling induces controlled micro-injuries to stimulate collagen production, while CO2 laser therapy precisely ablates scar tissue. This comprehensive review evaluates the efficacy, safety, and comparative benefits of microneedling and CO2 laser therapy. Literature synthesis reveals both modalities to improve acne scars, albeit with different mechanisms and risks. Factors influencing treatment selection and the role of combination therapy are discussed. Future directions include optimising protocols and exploring novel techniques. Overall, microneedling and CO2 laser therapy offer valuable options for acne scar management, empowering individuals to address the physical and emotional burden of scarring.

Approach to Diagnosis and Management of Hypertension: A Comprehensive and Combined Pediatric and Adult Perspective

The global prevalence of primary hypertension has been increasing both in children and in the adolescent and adult populations and can be attributed to changes in lifestyle factors with an obesity epidemic, increased salt consumption, and sedentary lifestyles. Childhood blood pressure is the strongest predictor of adult hypertension. Although hypertension in adults is associated strongly with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and mortality, outcomes in children are defined less clearly. In adults, major guidelines agree on a threshold of less than 120/80 mm Hg as the optimal blood pressure (BP) and recommend a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for treatment in most cases. In children, international pediatric guidelines recommend using thresholds based on the normative distribution of BP in healthy normal-weight children. Out-of-office BP assessment is extremely useful for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension and monitoring response to treatment. Lifestyle modifications are instrumental whether coupled or not with pharmacologic management. New agents such as nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, aminopeptidase A inhibitors, aldosterone synthase inhibitors, and dual endothelin antagonists hold significant promise for resistant hypertension. The transition from pediatric to adult care can be challenging and requires careful planning and effective coordination within a multidisciplinary team that includes patients and their families, and pediatric and adult providers.

Synthesis of novel combinatorial drug delivery system (nCDDS) for co-delivery of 5-Fluorouracil and Leucovorin calcium for colon targeting and controlled drug release

Objective: Purpose of the current study was to improve the oral effectiveness of 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) by developing novel controlled, combinatorial drug delivery system (nCDDS) for co-delivery of 5-FU and Leucovorin (LC) for colon targeting.Significance: on the basis of results obtained, novel controlled, combinatorial drug delivery system (nCDDS) could be an effective strategy for the colon targeting of 5-FU and LC.Methods: Free radical polymerization method was tuned and used to fabricate this nCDDS. The nCDDS is synthesized in two steps, firstly synthesis of 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin calcium loaded nanogels and secondly, pre-synthesized 5-FU & LC loaded nanogels were dispersed in pectin based polymerized matrix hard gel. The nanogels and nCDD gels were characterized for network structure, thermal stability and surface morphology. Swelling and in-vitro release studies were carried out at different pH 1.2 and 7.4 both for naive nanogels and combined matrix gels. In-vivo study of combinatorial gel was performed on rabbits by using HPLC method to estimate plasma drug concentration and pharmacokinetics parameters.Results: Structure and thermal analysis confirmed the formation of stable polymeric network. SEM of nanogels and combinatorial gels showed that the spongy and rough edges particles and uniformly distributed in the combinatorial gel. The prepared nCDDS showed excellent water loving capacity and pH responsiveness. Combinatorial gel showed excellent characteristic for colonic delivery of drugs, which were confirmed by various in-vitro and in-vivo characterization. Acute oral toxicity study of combinatorial gel confirmed the biocompatible and non-toxic characteristics of developed formulation.Conclusion: Conclusively it can be found that nCDDS showed excellent properties regarding drug targeting in a controllable manner as compared to naive PEGylated nanogels.

The Risk of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Hydrochlorothiazide: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Because of continuous hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia and the use of photosensitizing drug, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), the risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) might be increased among patients with diabetes. This study aimed to estimate the risk of cSCC among HCTZ users with type 2 diabetes, and to determine whether thiazide-like diuretics, another drug in the same class with HCTZ, would be safer.

METHODS

We linked the benchmarking database in Dutch primary care, the Netherlands Cancer Registry, and the Dutch Personal Records Database (1998-2019). All 71,648 patients were included, except for those who had a history of skin cancer prior to cohort entry. We used Cox modeling to estimate the HRs and 95% confidence intervals for cSCC. The model was adjusted by cumulative exposure to each antihypertensive, age, sex, smoking, body mass index, blood pressure, serum creatinine, other confounding drug use at cohort entry, and cohort entry year.

RESULTS

There were 1,409 cSCC events (23 among thiazide-like diuretics users), during a follow-up of 679,789 person-years. Compared with no HCTZ use, the adjusted HRs for HCTZ use were 1.18 (1.00-1.40) for ≤2 years, 1.57 (1.32-1.88) for 2 to 4 years, and 2.09 (1.73-2.52) for >4 years. The HR was 0.90 (0.79-1.03) for an additional year of thiazide-like diuretic use.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes, exposure to HCTZ for >2 years is associated with an increased risk of cSCC, whereas no increased risk associated with thiazide-like diuretics was observed.

IMPACT

The potential increased risk of cSCC should be a consideration when prescribing HCTZ, with thiazide-like diuretics offering a safer alternative.

Antihypertensive Prescribing Pattern in Older Adults: Implications of Age and the Use of Dual Single-Pill Combinations

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension, if not appropriately treated, is associated with life-threatening complications.

AIMS

This study evaluated antihypertensive prescribing patterns in older adults (≥ 65 years) versus young adults based on the current guidelines with an emphasis on the use of dual single-pill combinations (SPCs).

METHODS

A nationwide audit of 8746 primary care prescriptions of hypertensive patients with comorbidities in Bahrain was performed.

RESULTS

Antihypertensive combination therapy was prescribed more often to older (77.1%) than young adults (68.6%; P < 0.0001) whereas SPCs were under-used (57.6% vs. 69.4%; P < 0.0001). Recommended dual SPCs, without/with a combination of a free-dose complementary antihypertensive agent, were significantly less often prescribed for the older adult as compared to young adult adults (45.1% vs. 62.99% and 35.97% vs. 46.72%; P < 0.0001), respectively. Unacceptable two- and three-drug combinations (including those with limited clinical evidence and unacceptable ones) were prescribed more often to older adults rather than to young ones (20.06% vs. 12.6%; and 56.5% vs. 46.8%; P < 0.0001), respectively. In both age groups, the top-three antihypertensive classes prescribed as monotherapy were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and β blockers.

CONCLUSION

The updated guidelines for hypertension treatment in older adults have had a limited impact on primary care practice in Bahrain. In both age groups, there was a high positive correlation between the number of antihypertensive drugs prescribed and prescribing unacceptable combinations. Unacceptable combinations comprising SPC-related antihypertensive therapy duplication were more common than those reported elsewhere. Introducing approved triple SPCs may discourage prescribing unacceptable antihypertensive drugs and their combinations that lack robust evidence.

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study

BACKGROUND

The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]).

CONCLUSION

The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

Telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy for the treatment of hypertension

BACKGROUND

Control of elevated blood pressure has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), telmisartan, has been shown to provide effective 24-hour blood pressure control. Additional antihypertensive efficacy can be achieved by combining telmisartan with the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical data in combination therapy with telmisartan and HCTZ.

METHODS

Search of Medline and Embase for published clinical studies using the keywords telmisartan and HCTZ.

FINDINGS

The telmisartan/HCTZ combination provides significant reductions in blood pressure, effective 24-hour blood pressure control and is well-tolerated. Blood pressure reductions with this combination are greater than those achieved with either drug alone, and in comparative studies telmisartan/HCTZ is more effective than other ARB/HCTZ combinations. However, it should be noted that some of the combinations assessed used doses of the drugs that were commercially available at the time of the trial and not higher doses that have been shown to have greater antihypertensive efficacy.

CONCLUSION

The combination of telmisartan/HCTZ is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with hypertension.

Valsartan addition to amlodipine is more effective than losartan addition in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by amlodipine

Introduction:

This study evaluated the effects on blood pressure (BP) of valsartan 160 mg or losartan 100 mg addition to amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive patients.

Methods:

221 patients with inadequately controlled BP (DBP ≥ 90 mmHg) after 4 weeks of treatment with amlodipine 5 mg were randomized to receive losartan/amlodipine combination therapy or valsartan/amlodipine combination therapy for 4 weeks in a cross-over study design. At the end of the wash-out period and of each treatment period, clinic and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded.

Results:

166 patients completed the study. Both combination treatments induced a greater ambulatory BP reduction than did monotherapy. However, the further mean reductions in BP versus monotherapy were significantly greater with the valsartan/amlodipine combination (SBP/DBP: −7.9 ± 3.4/−6.5 ± 2.6 mmHg for 24-hour, −8.0 ± 3.4/−6.6 ± 2.7 mmHg for daytime; −7.7 ± 3.3/−6.4 ± 2.7 mmHg for nighttime) than with the losartan/amlodipine combination (SBP/DBP: −5.5 ± 2.8/−4.2 ± 2.1 mmHg for 24-hour, −5.7 ± 2.9/−4.4 ± 2.2 mmHg for daytime; −4.8 ± 2.8/−3.7 ± 2.2 mmHg for nighttime; P < 0.01 vs valsartan/amlodipine). The incidence of adverse events with valsartan/amlodipine (8%) and losartan/amlodipine (9%) was lower than that observed with amlodipine monotherapy (17%; P < 0.05 vs combinations).

Conclusion:

Valsartan 160 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg produced greater BP reductions than losartan 100 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg.

Update on the Management of Hypertension: Recent Clinical Trials and the JNC 7

The following issues are highlighted: Emphasis is placed on the importance of systolic blood pressure elevations in estimating risk and in determining prognosis. A review of placebo-controlled clinical trials indicates that cardiovascular events are statistically significantly reduced with diuretic- or b blocker-based treatment regimens. The question of whether blood pressure lowering alone or specific medications make the difference in outcome is discussed. Based on the results of numerous trials, it is apparent that blood pressure lowering itself is probably of greater importance in reducing cardiovascular events than the specific medication used. Meta-analyses suggest, however, that the use of an agent that blocks the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system is probably more effective in diabetics and in patients with nephropathy than a regimen based on calcium channel blocker therapy. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) reported no overall difference in coronary heart disease outcome among patients treated with a diuretic-based compared to a calcium channel blocker- or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-based treatment program. However, patients in the diuretic group experienced fewer episodes of heart failure than in the calcium channel blocker group and fewer episodes of heart failure and strokes than those in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor group. Results were similar in diabetics and nondiabetics. Possible reasons for this outcome are discussed. The Australian National Blood Pressure 2 study, which was unblinded, reported a marginally significantly better outcome only in male patients receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-based regimen compared to those receiving a diuretic-based program. Finally, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) is reviewed. Highlights of this report include the new designation of prehypertension, i.e., blood pressures of 120-139 mm Hg/80-89 mm Hg. The JNC 7 suggested that diuretics should be the first-step drug of choice in most patients, but listed numerous specific reasons why other agents should be used in special situations. The report stressed that the majority of patients will require two or more medications to achieve goal blood pressure.

Rationale for Combination Therapy in the Management of Hypertension

Combination drug therapy in the management of hypertension has been used for many years. Recent recommendations of the Seventh Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure and the results of several new multiple-drug trials have focused on using the approach as initial therapy in many hypertensive patients. Results of these long-term outcome trials, as well as short-term and smaller studies, indicate the advantage of multiple-drug therapy in the management of hypertension.

Clinical practice and recent recommendations in hypertension management--reporting a gap in a global survey of 1259 primary care physicians in 17 countries

OBJECTIVE

High blood pressure (BP) is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Effective antihypertensive pharmacotherapy is available but recognition and proper management of hypertension and BP goal achievement is still poor. Therefore, it was hypothesized that physicians' attitude towards high BP, as well as patients' perception and knowledge, may influence actual management of hypertension.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Telephone interviews were carried out with a random sample of 1259 primary care physicians in 17 countries worldwide from 12 December 2005 to 13 January 2006 using a central computer assisted telephone interview methodology (CATI).

RESULTS

(1) Physicians believed that 62 +/- 21% of their patients had their BP controlled. (2) They were mostly in line with guideline recommended BP goals and 96% were aware of the elevated cardiovascular risk of hypertension, but 41% aimed to reduce BP to acceptable levels only. (3) Physicians indicated that in 41% of patients monotherapy controls BP and 71% would escalate to combination therapy after monotherapy failure. (4) 54% regard hypertension management as difficult. (5) Physicians estimated that between 60 and 70% of patients know their BP goal but thought that there was still room for improvement of hypertension management on the patient side.

CONCLUSION

Although many effective treatment options for arterial hypertension exist, BP goal achievement worldwide is suboptimal, leaving patients at an unnecessary cardiovascular risk. An increase in patients' awareness and compliance together with an increased adherence of physicians to current guidelines should help in reducing the long term cardiovascular consequences of hypertension.

Synergism of hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine on reduction of blood pressure and blood pressure variability in spontaneously hypertensive rats

AIM

To investigate the possible synergism of hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine on reducing both blood pressure (BP) and blood pressure variability (BPV) in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR).

METHODS

Seventy animals were randomly divided into seven groups. The doses were 5 and 10 mg/kg for nitrendipine, 10 and 20 mg/kg for hydrochlorothiazide and 10 + 5, 20 + 10 mg/kg, respectively, for the combination of these two drugs and 0.8% carboxymethylcellulose as control. The drugs were given via a catheter of gastric fistula. BP was then continuously recorded for 5 h from 1 h before drug administration to the end of 4th hour after drug administration, in conscious and freely moving rats.

RESULTS

The effects on both BP and BPV reduction of the combination of hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine were greater than the single drug in SHR. The two drugs possessed an obvious synergism on both systolic blood pressure (q = 1.79 with small dose and q = 1.23 with large dose) and systolic blood pressure variability reduction (q = 1.79 with small dose and q = 1.39 with large dose) in SHR.

CONCLUSION

The present work clearly demonstrated that there was a synergistic effect between hydrochlorothiazide and nitrendipine in lowering and stabilizing BP in SHR.

Effective treatment of hypertension by AT(1) receptor antagonism: the past and future of telmisartan

Lowering blood pressure is the most effective treatment method to ensure a reduction in the total risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in volume homeostasis and blood pressure regulation and is a target for several groups of pharmaceutical agents. Angiotensin II receptor blockers represent the newest class of antihypertensive compounds. They prevent the binding of angiotensin II to the subtype 1 receptor (AT(1)), which is believed to mediate most of the physiological actions relevant to the regulation of blood pressure. Telmisartan, a widely used AT(1) receptor antagonist, is a highly selective compound with high potency, a long duration of action and a tolerability profile similar to placebo. Numerous randomized clinical trials and community-based studies have demonstrated that oral telmisartan and combinations of telmisartan with hydrochlorothiazide are at least as effective in lowering blood pressure as all other hypertensive medications. This has been demonstrated in different populations of adult patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, including patients with coexisting Type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome or renal impairment. Several large-scale, long-term, clinical endpoint studies are in progress to assess the beneficial effects of telmisartan on hypertension-related end-organ damage in patients at high risk of renal, cardiac and vascular damage whose blood pressure is well controlled. The most recent data from clinical trials and latest research regarding telmisartan will be reviewed in this article.

Hydrochlorothiazide added to valsartan is more effective than when added to olmesartan in reducing blood pressure in moderately hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by monotherapy

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects on blood pressure of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg added to valsartan 160 mg or to olmesartan 20 mg in hypertensive patients. After a 2-wk placebo period, 130 patients, aged 35 to 75 y, with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >or=99 and 110 mm Hg were randomly assigned to olmesartan 20 mg once daily or to valsartan 160 mg once daily according to a prospective, parallel-arm study design. After 4 wk of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP >or=90 mm Hg) were given combination treatment with HCTZ 12.5 mg for an additional 4 wk. At the end of the placebo period and at the end of each treatment period, clinical and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded. At the end of the combination therapy period, venous blood samples were drawn 2, 4, and 24 h after drug intake for evaluation of HCTZ plasma concentrations. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory BP reduction than monotherapy. However, mean reduction from baseline in the valsartan/HCTZ-treated patients (-21.5)-14.6 mm Hg for 24 h, -21.8/-14.9 mm Hg for daytime, and -20.4/-13.7 mm Hg for nighttime systolic blood pressure [SBP]/DBP) was greater than in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients )-18.8/-12.3 mm Hg for 24 h, -19.3/-12.8 mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4/-10.6 mm Hg for nighttime SBP/DBP). The difference between the effects of the 2 treatments was significant (P<.01). In particular, compared with monotherapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg was significantly greater in the valsartan group than in those treated with olmesartan; the difference was more evident for nighttime BP values. Plasma concentrations of HCTZ were significantly greater with valsartan than with olmesartan at each determination time (P<.05). These findings suggest that the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to valsartan 160 mg monotherapy produces a greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 mg monotherapy.

Effects of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors in combination with diuretics on blood pressure and renal injury in nitric oxide-deficiency-induced hypertension in rats

The present study investigates the effects of chronic administration of ACEIs (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors; either zofenopril or enalapril) in combination with a diruetic (hydrochlorothiazide) on BP (blood pressure) increase and renal injury induced by L-NAME (NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester), an inhibitor of NO (nitric oxide) synthesis. Rats were untreated or received L-NAME alone, L-NAME+zofenopril+hydrochlorothiazide or L-NAME+enalapril+hydrochlorothiazide for 8 weeks. L-NAME treatment resulted in marked elevation in BP and mortality. Treatment with either ACEI and diuretic prevented the increase in BP induced by L-NAME, reduced the death rate and improved excretory parameters. Renal injury in the L-NAME group was severe, but, in the groups treated with either ACEI and diuretic, glomerular and tubulointerstitial lesions were not observed and the intensity, number and size of vessels affected was reduced. However, the efficacy of zofenopril+diuretic was superior to that of enalapril+diuretic in reducing vascular alterations. Oxidative stress indices and the expression of NO synthase and nitrotyrosine were normalized by the treatments. In conclusion, the combined treatment of zofenopril or enalapril with hydrochlorothiazide completely prevented the development of arterial hypertension induced by L-NAME. Renal morphological and functional alterations in the hypertensive animals were also almost completely normalized, but the treatment with zofenopril+diuretic produced a more complete organ protection. The protective effect is related to an activation of endothelial NO synthase expression and to a normalization of the oxidative stress parameters due to the inhibition of angiotensin II.

Comparison of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/12.5 mg and 80/12.5 mg and a fixed-dose combination of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide 50/12.5 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertension: pooled analysis of two multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) trials

BACKGROUND

High incidences of cardiovascular events coincide with a surge in blood pressure (BP) that occurs in the early morning hours at the time of arousal. Thus, control of BP at this time of day, using oral fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) as required, is important in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy in the early morning hours and tolerability of oral FDCs of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (40/12.5 mg [T40/H12.5] and 80/12.5 mg [T80/H12.5]) versus a low-dose FDC of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (L50/H12.5).

METHODS

Data from 2 similarly designed prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) studies were pooled and analyzed. The studies were conducted at 72 centers across the United States, and 70 centers in Canada, Europe (9 countries), and the Philippines. Adult male and female patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP [DBP], > or =85 mm Hg; seated cuff DBP, 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive T40/H12.5, L50/H12.5, or T80/H12.5, QD (morning) for 6 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and cuff sphygmomanometry at trough, performed at baseline and on completion of active treatment. The primary end point was the reduction from baseline in mean ambulatory DBP over the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. Secondary end points included other ABPM- and clinic-derived changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP), and control and response rates (SBP response defined as 24-hour mean SBP <130 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP response defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP control defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg). Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, spontaneous reporting, and clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 1402 patients were enrolled(876 men, 525 women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [9.9] years) (T40/H12.5, n = 517; L50/H12.5, n = 518; and T80/H12.5, n = 367). With T40/H12.5, the mean reduction in last-6-hour mean ambulatory DBP was 1.8 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-11.3 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001), and with T80/H12.5, the mean reduction was 2.6 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-12.0 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Analysis of secondary end points found that greater BP reduction occurred with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5. ABPM SBP control and response rates were similar between the 3 groups, but the ABPM DBP control and response rates were significantly higher with T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (46.6% vs 34.0% [P < 0.002] and 69.4% vs 55.0% [P < 0.001], respectively). Clinic SBP and DBP control and response rates were higher with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (SBP response, 80.4% and 80.8% vs 68.5% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP response, 66.1% and 67.4% vs 54.4% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP control, 56.5% and 56.4% vs 44.1% [both, P < 0.001] ). The 2 most commonly recorded adverse events (AEs) were headache (T40/H12.5, 2.9%; L50/H12.5, 3.3%; and T80/H12.5, 3.0%) and dizziness (1.2%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively). Most AEs were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this pooled analysis of2 PROBE studies in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension suggest that T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 conferred greater DBP and SBP control compared with low-dose L50/H12.5, including during the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to assess the efficacy and safety of dual ACE/NEP inhibitor GW660511X in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients

This multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study determined the efficacy and safety of GW660511 200 mg, a dual inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and neutral endopeptidase (NEP), in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure (DBP), > or =90 and < or =109 mm Hg; systolic blood pressure (SBP), > or =150 and < or =180 mm Hg). After a single-blind 2- to 4-week placebo run-in period, 123 patients (aged 18-65 years) were randomized to either placebo (n=62) or to active treatment (n=61) consisting of two consecutive 3-day dose titration periods of GW660511X 50 mg once daily and 100 mg once daily followed by GW660511X 200 mg once daily for 14 days. GW660511X 200 mg significantly lowered (baseline and placebo-corrected) both trough mean cuff SBP (-8.00 mm Hg, P=0.002) and DBP (-5.38 mm Hg, P=0.003). GW660511X 200 mg significantly reduced placebo-corrected mean 24-h and daytime but not night-time ambulatory SBP and DBP. Over the 0-24 h time period following GW660511X 200 mg, there were significant (P<0.001) reductions in serum ACE activity and significant (P<0.001) increases in plasma ANP concentration compared with placebo in terms of both peak and trough effects. In addition, treatment with GW660511X 200 mg significantly (P=0.003) increased (placebo-corrected, 1.52-fold) urinary excretion of cGMP over the 0-24 h interval. Treatment-related adverse events were experienced by 43% of the patients administered GW660511X 200 mg and 44% of those dosed with placebo with headache the most commonly reported. In conclusion, GW660511X 200 mg is an effective antihypertensive in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients with potent effects on biological markers of ACE and NEP inhibition.

Synergistic effects of atenolol and amlodipine for lowering and stabilizing blood pressure in 2K1C renovascular hypertensive rats

AIM

To test the synergistic effects of atenolol and amlodipine on lowering blood pressure (BP) and reducing blood pressure variability (BPV) in 2-kidney, one-clip (2K1C) renovascular hypertensive rats.

METHODS

Forty-eight 2K1C renovascular hypertensive rats were randomly divided into 6 groups. They were respectively given 0.8% carboxymethylcellulose sodium (control), atenolol (10.0 mg/kg), amlodipine (1.0 mg/kg), and combined atenolol and amlodipine (low dose: 5.0+0.5 mg/kg; intermediate dose: 10.0+1.0 mg/kg; high dose: 20.0+2.0 mg/kg). The drugs were given via a catheter in a gastric fistula. BP was recorded for 25 h from 1 h before drug administration to 24 h after administration.

RESULTS

Compared with BP before medication, all 3 doses of combined atenolol and amlodipine significantly decreased the BP at 24 h after administration, except for the low dose on diastolic BP. Compared with the control group, all 3 doses of combined atenolol and amlodipine significantly reduced the average BP levels for the 24 h period after administration; furthermore, the high and intermediate doses also significantly decreased the BPV levels for the same period. The q values calculated by probability sum analysis for systolic and diastolic BP for the 24 h period after administration were 2.29 and 1.45, respectively, and for systolic and diastolic BPV for the same period they were 1.41 and 1.60, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is significant synergism between atenolol and amlodipine in lowering and stabilizing BP in 2K1C renovascular hypertensive rats.

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers in combination with hydrochlorothiazide: a review of the factorial-design studies

Most hypertensive patients require more than one drug for adequate blood pressure (BP) control. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends starting treatment with a thiazide diuretic or, when BP is >20/10 mm Hg above goal or in patients with diabetes, using two different antihypertensive agents. Searches of Medline, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases identified four similarly designed, randomized, factorial studies comparing various doses of angiotensin II receptor blockers with hydrochlorothiazide as monotherapy and in combination. The methodology and results of these studies were compared. The primary efficacy end point in these studies was a decrease from baseline in mean diastolic BP after 8 weeks of therapy. All currently available angiotensin I receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations evaluated (irbesartan, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide) produced significant systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions. Olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide 40 mg/25 mg provided the largest mean reduction in absolute and placebo-corrected systolic BP/diastolic BP. For all angiotensin II receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations evaluated, > or =63% of patients achieved a diastolic BP response (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10-mm Hg reduction). In conclusion, the combination of an angiotensin II receptor blocker and hydrochlorothiazide produces more substantial BP responses than monotherapy with either component.

Synergism of atenolol and amlodipine on lowering and stabilizing blood pressure in spontaneously hypertensive rats

This study was designed to investigate the possible synergism of atenolol and amlodipine on lowering and stabilizing blood pressure (BP) in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Sixty-four spontaneously hypertensive rats were randomly divided into eight groups. They were given 0.8% carboxymethylcellulose sodium (control), atenolol (10 mg/kg), amlodipine (0.5, 1 and 2 mg/kg) and the combinations of atenolol and amlodipine (10 + 0.5, 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 mg/kg), respectively. The drugs were given via a catheter of gastric fistula. BP was recorded for 25 h from 1 h before drug administration to 24 h after administration, in conscious, freely moving rats. It was found that combination of atenolol and amlodipine significantly decreased BP and systolic BP variability. From probability sum analysis it was found that the combination of atenolol and amlodipine, in a proportion as 10 : 1, was the best one (q = 1.54). In conclusion, the present work clearly demonstrated that there is a synergistic effect between atenolol and amlodipine in lowering and stabilizing the BP. The synergistic effect is highest when the dose proportion of the two drugs is 10 : 1.

Evolving role of aldosterone blockers alone and in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in hypertension management: a review of mechanistic and clinical data

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays an integral role in blood pressure regulation and has long been a target of pharmacologic approaches to controlling blood pressure. Traditionally, clinical interventions involving the RAAS have focused mainly on inhibiting the action of angiotensin II with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers, and limited attention has been devoted to direct inhibition of the action of aldosterone. Recent advances in understanding the role of aldosterone in cardiovascular injury have elevated the importance of direct inhibition of the action of this hormone in the long-term control of blood pressure and have led to the development of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone. This article reviews the role of the RAAS in the development of hypertension and discusses the rationale for the use of eplerenone with other medications affecting the RAAS to control blood pressure.

Continued importance of diuretics and beta-adrenergic blockers in the management of hypertension

The use of thiazide diuretics as one of the preferred antihypertensive medications has stood the test of time. Since the introduction of orally effective agents in 1957 to 1958, these drugs have continued to prove their usefulness. Numerous clinical trials have confirmed that these medications are as or more effective in reducing blood pressure and cardiovascular events than any of the other effective antihypertensive agents. Although some metabolic changes may occur with higher dosages of these medications, they seem to be of limited clinical significance. In addition to being well tolerated and effective. thiazide-type diuretics are less expensive than other agents. This should be considered in view of the fact that quality of care is not compromised when the less expensive medication is used. beta-Blockers should also be considered as a major drug class in the management of hypertensive patients. There are few studies directly comparing these drugs with other agents. Although some data suggest that they are less effective in reducing CHD events in the elderly, there are numerous situations where beta-blockers are clearly indicated. Combination therapy with a beta-blocker and diuretic has been shown to be highly effective in reducing cardiovascular events in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

Very-low-dose combination: a first-line choice for the treatment of hypertension?

Essential hypertension is a very heterogeneous disease and different pressor mechanisms might interact to increase blood pressure. It is therefore not surprising that antihypertensive drugs given as monotherapies normalize blood pressure in only a proportion of hypertensive patients. This is, for instance, the case for diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonists administered as single agents. The rationale for combining antihypertensive agents relates in part to the concept that the blood pressure-decreasing effect may be enhanced when two classes are coadministered. Also, combination treatment serves to counteract the counter-regulatory mechanisms that are triggered whenever pharmacologic intervention is initiated and act to limit the efficacy of the antihypertensive medication. For example, the compensatory increase in renin secretion induced by sodium depletion may become the predominant factor sustaining high blood pressure. Simultaneous blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, with either an ACE inhibitor or an AT1 receptor blocker, makes this compensatory hyper-reninaemia ineffective and allows maximum benefit from sodium depletion. The increased effectiveness obtained by combining a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system with a low dose of a diuretic is not obtained at the expense of reduced tolerability compared with the individual components administered alone. Fixed very-low-dose combinations containing an ACE inhibitor or an AT1 receptor blocker and a diuretic are therefore likely to become increasingly used, not only as second-line therapy, but also as first-line treatment. This is the case, for instance, for the fixed very-low-dose combination of the ACE inhibitor perindopril (2 mg) and the diuretic indapamide (0.625 mg), as this preparation is very effective in decreasing blood pressure while maintaining a tolerability that is similar to that of placebo.

Achieving goal blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: conventional versus fixed-dose combination approaches

Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) demonstrate that only 11% of people with diabetes who are treated for high blood pressure achieve the blood pressure goal of <130/85 mm Hg recommended in the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI). The current study tests the hypothesis that initial therapy with a fixed-dose combination will achieve the recommended blood pressure goal in patients with type 2 diabetes faster than conventional monotherapy. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study had as a primary end point achievement of blood pressure <130/85 mm Hg. Participants (N=214) with hypertension and type 2 diabetes received either amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (combination) or enalapril 10 mg (conventional) once daily for 4 weeks, titrated to 5/20 mg/day or 20 mg/day, respectively at this time, if target blood pressure was not achieved. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg/day was added for the final 4 weeks, if target blood pressure was still not reached. Time from baseline to achieve blood pressure <130/85 mm Hg was shorter in the combination group (5.3+/-3.1 weeks combination vs. 6.4+/-3.8 weeks conventional; p=0.001). At 3 months, more participants in the combination group achieved treatment goal (63% combination vs. 37% conventional; p=0.002). Data analysis at 3 months comparing blood pressure control rates between the fixed-dose combination group (without HCTZ) to the conventional group (receiving HCTZ) showed an even greater disparity in blood pressure goal achievement (87% combination without HCTZ vs. 37% conventional group with HCTZ; p=0.0001). We conclude that initial therapy with a fixed-dose combination may be more efficacious than conventional monotherapy approaches for achieving blood pressure goals in the diabetic patient. A fixed-dose combination approach appears as safe as the current conventional approaches.

Fixed combinations of delapril plus indapamide vs fosinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in mild to moderate essential hypertension

This 12-week randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study compared fixed combinations of delapril (D) 30 mg plus indapamide (I) 2.5 mg and fosinopril (F) 20 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (H) 12.5 mg in 171 adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. After a 2-week placebo run-in, sitting and standing systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was measured by conventional sphygmomanometry. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of normalized (sitting DBP < or =90 mm Hg) and responder (sitting DBP reduction of 10 mm Hg or DBP < or =90 mm Hg) patients. Treatment effects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 171) and the per-protocol (PP; n = 167) populations. The percentage of normalized and responder patients did not differ significantly between the D + I (87.4% and 92%) and the F + H (81% and 86.9%) ITT groups. Similar results were seen in the PP population. In ITT and PP patients, sitting and standing SBP and DBP values were comparable at baseline in the two groups and were significantly (P<.01) and similarly reduced at weeks 4, 8, and 12. Neither treatment induced reflex tachycardia, and both regimens were well tolerated. Four patients in the F + H group dropped out because of adverse events. In this study, the efficacy and safety of D + I were comparable to those of F + H in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

A CANDESARTAN CILEXETIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE COMBINATION TABLET PROVIDES EFFECTIVE BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS INADEQUATELY CONTROLLED ON MONOTHERAPY

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel-group study, a combination tablet of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 16/12.5 mg once daily, reduced sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) significantly more (p = 0.037) than candesartan cilexetil/placebo, 16 mg once daily, in patients with mild to moderate primary hypertension (n = 328) who had not reached target blood pressure with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg once daily. At the end of the 8-week double-blind treatment period, the adjusted mean reductions in sitting DBP, 24 h post dose, were 7.5 mm Hg in the candesartan cilexetil/HCTZ treatment group and 5.5 mm Hg in the candesartan cilexetil/placebo treatment group, corresponding to an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 2.0 mm Hg in favour of candesartan cilexetil/HCTZ (95% CI 0.1-3.8 mm Hg, p = 0.037). The adjusted mean reductions in sitting systolic blood pressure, 24 h post dose, were 12.0 mm Hg and 7.5 mm Hg, respectively, corresponding to an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 4.5 mm Hg (95% CI 1.1-8.0, p = 0.01). Consistent with the placebo-like tolerability of candesartan cilexetil reported in other studies, both treatments were very well tolerated, with a similar pattern and low frequency of adverse events in both treatment groups.

Control of primary hypertension by pharmacologic monotherapy in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the control degree and characteristics of arterial pressure (AP) obtained with monotherapy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A sample was obtained of 277 hypertensive patients (83 men and 194 women) on monotherapy from cluster sampling. All included patients were older than 18 years and had essential hypertension (HBP). Both systolic and diastolic pressure values (mean of two measurements), prescribed drug, age and sex were recorded.

RESULTS

Less than 30% of subjects had adequate control (< 140/90), mainly because of poor control of systolic BP. The drug group most commonly was ACEI, followed by calcium blockers (CAB); enalapril and chlortalidone were the most commonly prescribed drugs. Diuretics were used most frequently by women (OR 4.2). The use of diuretics, calcium channel antagonists and alphaadrenergic blockers increased with age. The opposite was true for ACEI and beta blockers.

CONCLUSIONS

A poor control of HBP in patients on monotherapy was observed, particularly for the systolic component. There is a higher use of ACEI and HBP. There is a highly significant difference regarding the use of diuretics between men and women which has no theoretical basis.